Search Results

MIST IC abutments are intended for use to support a prosthetic device in a partially or completely edentulous patient. They are intended to support a single-unit or multi-unit, cement retained prosthesis in the mandible or maxilla. MIST IC abutments are compatible for use with the following implants:

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with MIST IC abutments are to be sent to an Imagine Milling Technologies validated milling center for manufacture.

MIST IC from Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC is a line of Ti-base and machinable blank abutments to interface with compatible dental implants from four (4) manufacturers, and a total of eight (8) implant-abutment interface compatibilities. The subject device prosthetic platform diameters range from 3.8 mm to 6.9 mm. All stock subject device components (abutments and abutment screws) are made of titanium alloy conforming to ASTM F136. The subject device MIST IC L-LINK abutments have a TiN coating achieved through a physical vapor deposition (PVD) process that is identical to the process used for TiN coating of Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC devices cleared in K222368. The PVD cathodic arc evaporation process is a high current, low voltage process in which material evaporated from the cathode (Ti) is ionized, transported through the vacuum chamber with reactive gas (N2) and deposited as a non-porous, thin film on the titanium substrate. Each abutment is supplied with the non-sterile abutment screw designed for attachment to the corresponding compatible OEM implant.

All patient-specific abutment fabrication for all MIST IC abutments is by prescription on the order of the clinician. All MIST IC abutments are intended to be milled at an Imagine Milling Technologies, LLC validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations.

MIST IC L-LINK abutments are two-piece abutments to be used as a base when fabricating a CAD-CAM customized restoration where the superstructure produced will compose the second part of the two-piece abutment; the assembly becoming a final finished medical device after cementation on the subject device abutment. They are provided with engaging and non-engaging connections.

The L-LINK abutments and corresponding zirconia superstructure are provided to the clinician either with the superstructure cemented to the abutment by the dental laboratory, or separately for the clinician to bond together chairside using the cement required in the labeling (RelyX RMGIP bonding cement, cleared in K022476).

The design parameters for L-LINK patient-specific abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.5 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height – 0.5 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for all except Straumann BLX L-Link) – 5.0 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for Straumann BLX L-LINK) – 6.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 20°

All zirconia copings (superstructures) for use with the subject device MIST IC L-LINK abutments will conform to ISO 13356.

MIST IC PREFIT abutments are cylindrical abutments designed for patient-specific abutment fabrication by a CAD-CAM process and machined into a one-piece, all titanium abutment. The portion of the abutment available for milling is either 9.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length or 13.9 mm in diameter by 20 mm in length. MIST IC PREFIT abutments have an engaging connection.

The design parameters for PREFIT patient-specific abutments are:

• Minimum wall thickness – 0.5 mm
• Minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration – 4.0 (minimum cementable post height for single-unit restoration is defined as the height above the restorative margin)
• Minimum gingival height – 0.5 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for all except Straumann BLX PREFIT) – 5.0 mm
• Maximum gingival height (for Straumann BLX PREFIT) – 6.0 mm
• Maximum angle – 30°

The provided document is a 510(k) clearance letter for a dental device, specifically dental implant abutments. It details the device's administrative information, predicate devices, indications for use, subject device description, and performance data used to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

However, the document does not contain any information regarding acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. The performance data section refers to non-clinical analyses, such as MR compatibility, sterilization validation, biocompatibility, mechanical properties testing, reverse engineering, and static/dynamic compression-bending testing conforming to ISO 14801. These are standard tests for mechanical dental devices, not AI/ML performance evaluation.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information for acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI device meets them based on the given text. The device described, "Mist IC," is a physical dental implant abutment, not an artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) powered medical device.

To directly answer your prompt based on the provided text, the following information is missing or not applicable:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Not applicable. The document describes mechanical and material performance testing for a physical device, not AI/ML performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC against defined acceptance criteria for an AI algorithm.
2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. There is no AI/ML test set. The document refers to testing of physical components (OEM implants, abutments, screws, subject device constructs).
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. No AI/ML ground truth establishment.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable.
5. If a multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. This is not an AI-assisted diagnostic device.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.): Not applicable. The "ground truth" for this device's performance would be the physical properties and mechanical integrity verified by engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801).
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. No AI/ML training set mentioned.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable. No AI/ML training set mentioned.

The document focuses solely on the substantial equivalence of the "Mist IC" dental implant abutments to legally marketed predicate devices based on design, materials, manufacturing, and conventional mechanical/material performance testing.

Ask a specific question about this device

Dynamic TiBase abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

Compatible Implant Systems:

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with Dynamic TiBase abutments are to be sent to a Talladium Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

Dynamic TiBase abutments are two-piece abutments composed of a CAD-CAM fabricated zirconia superstructure and a prefabricated titanium base component where the final two-piece abutment (base and cemented superstructure) is the finished device used for the prosthetic restoration. All subject device bases are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V) conforming to ISO 5832-3 and ASTM F136. The Dynamic TiBase abutments are provided in engaging and non-engaging designs for single-unit and multi-unit restorations, respectively.

For each of the compatible OEM implant lines, the prefabricated titanium base components are provided with a gingival height (in the titanium base) ranging from 0.3 mm to 4 mm, and a platform diameter ranging from 4.30 mm to 5.50 mm. Angulation and additional gingival height may be provided in the zirconia superstructure. All Dynamic TiBase prefabricated titanium base components have a post with a cut-out to accommodate a restoration with an angled channel for screw access when clinically necessary. The post height of the prefabricated titanium base component ranges from 3.8 mm to 5.40 mm, and from 2.3 mm to 3.8 mm (cut-out height). The cementable post height of the final patient-matched abutment design, measured above the total combined gingival collar, shall be no less than 4 mm.

All zirconia superstructures (copings) used to complete the final two-piece subject device Dynamic TiBase abutment will be made at a Talladium España, SL validated milling center under FDA quality system regulations, and the material will conform to ISO 13356.

The design parameters for the CAD-CAM zirconia superstructure for the Dynamic TiBase vary slightly among the compatible OEM implants. The design parameters for the CAD-CAM zirconia superstructure are summarized in the following table:

(1) for the compatible sizes shown in Table 1
(2) minimum gingival height in the titanium base, not the zirconia superstructure

The required cement for bonding the zirconia superstructure to the Dynamic TiBases to create the final two-piece abutment is Nova Resin Cement cleared in K213609.

Also, the subject of this submission are seven (7) abutment screws for use with the subject abutments.

This FDA 510(k) clearance letter pertains to a dental implant abutment — the Dynamic TiBase — not an AI-powered diagnostic device or software. Therefore, the information typically requested about acceptance criteria and study designs for validating AI/ML-based medical devices (such as sample size, expert ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, and training set details) is not applicable to this document.

The "performance data" section in this 510(k) summary refers to traditional engineering and biocompatibility testing for a physical medical device, not performance metrics for an algorithm.

Here's how to interpret the provided document in the context of "acceptance criteria" and "proof":

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (as inferred for a physical device):

For a physical device like the Dynamic TiBase, the "acceptance criteria" are generally met through demonstrating substantial equivalence to a previously cleared predicate device. This involves validating material properties, manufacturing processes, functional performance (e.g., mechanical strength, compatibility), and biocompatibility.

The "study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria" refers to the non-clinical testing performed to demonstrate substantial equivalence.

Regarding the specific questions about an AI/ML context:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance: Provided above, adapted for a physical medical device.
2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not applicable. The "test set" for this physical device refers to the number of physical abutment samples or material samples subjected to mechanical, biocompatibility, and MRI testing. The document does not specify exact sample numbers for these engineering tests, only the standards used (e.g., ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes). Data provenance is "non-clinical data" generated from laboratory testing.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable. Ground truth for a dental abutment's performance is established by engineering standards, material specifications, and physical testing, not by expert human interpretation of images or clinical outcomes in the same way as an AI diagnostic.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set: Not applicable. This is a concept used in evaluating human reader performance in AI studies.
5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance: Not applicable. This is for AI-assisted diagnostic devices.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done: Not applicable. This refers to an AI algorithm's performance.
7. The type of ground truth used: For a physical device, "ground truth" is defined by adherence to established engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical strength), material properties, and biocompatibility standards. "Reverse engineering dimensional analysis" served as a form of "ground truth" for compatibility. No pathology or outcomes data was used for this premarket notification.
8. The sample size for the training set: Not applicable. There is no "training set" as this is not an AI/ML device.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

In summary, this 510(k) clearance is for a physical medical device (dental abutment), and the "performance data" section details the engineering and material testing conducted to demonstrate its safety and effectiveness, primarily through substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices. It does not involve AI/ML validation methodologies.

Ask a specific question about this device

PreFace abutment, TI-Forms abutment, Titanium base 2nd generation, and Titanium base ASC Flex are intended for use with dental implants as a support for single or multiple tooth protheses in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient. Abutment-level prosthetic components (Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, MedentiBASE Titanium Base) are intended for use as a support for multi-unit screw-retained bridges and bars in the maxilla or mandible of a partially or fully edentulous patient.

All digitally designed abutments for use with PreFace abutment, TI-Forms abutment, Titanium base 2nd generation, Titanium base ASC Flex, Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, and MedentiBASE Titanium Base are intended to be sent to an FDA-registered Medentika validated milling center for manufacture or to be manufactured according to the digital dentistry workflow, which integrates multiple components: Scans from desktop and intra oral scanners, CAD and CAM software and milling machine with associated accessories.

Medentika abutments for the Nobel Biocare Nobel Active® 3.0 mm, Dentsply Sirona Astra Tech OsseoSpeed EV® 3.0 mm and TX® 3.0 mm, Straumann Bone Level 2.9 implant bodies are indicated for maxillary lateral and mandibular central/lateral incisors only.

The subject devices are Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments, which primarily expand the options for fabricating patient-specific final abutments from a "validated milling center" to a "digital dentistry workflow". This workflow uses scan files from intra-oral and lab (desktop) scanners, CAD software, CAM software, ceramic material, milling machines, and associated tooling and accessories. The devices include Titanium Base abutments, Titanium base ASC Flex abutments, and PreFace and TI-Form (blanks) abutments.

The abutments are made of titanium alloy (Ti-6Al-4V ELI). Titanium base abutments also include a zirconia superstructure. The specified zirconia materials for milling superstructures are Ivoclar Vivadent IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime, Ivoclar Vivadent IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime Esthetic, Amann Girrbach Zolid Bion, Amann Girrbach Zolid Gen-X, and Institut Straumann AG n!ce Zirkonia HT. The specified cement for bonding superstructures is Multilink Hybrid Abutment Cement from Ivoclar Vivadent AG.

Key design parameters for CAD/CAM zirconia superstructures (on Titanium base and Titanium base ASC Flex) include: minimum wall thickness of 0.5 mm, minimum cementable post height of 4.0 mm for single unit restorations, maximum gingival margin height of 5.0 mm, minimum gingival margin height of 0.5 mm, and maximum angulation of the final abutment of 30°.

PreFace and TI-Forms abutments (blanks) are used by dental laboratories to fabricate customized abutments from titanium alloy. Their design parameters include: minimum wall thickness of 0.4 mm, minimum cementable post height of 4.0 mm, maximum gingival margin height of 5.0 mm, minimum gingival margin height of 0.5 mm, and maximum angulation of 30°.

Prosthetic-level components (Multi-unit Titanium Base, Multi-unit Titanium Cap, MedentiBASE Titanium Base) are provided for use with previously cleared Medentika multi-unit abutments and MedentiBASE abutments.

All abutments are provided non-sterile with appropriate abutment screws. The screws attach the abutment to the implant or the prosthesis to the abutment.

The provided 510(k) clearance letter and summary describe a medical device, Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments, and its substantial equivalence to predicate devices based on non-clinical performance data. The document does not contain information about acceptance criteria or performance data for an AI/ML-based device, nor does it detail a clinical study involving human readers or expert consensus for ground truth.

Therefore, for the information requested in your prompt, I can only extract what is presented in the document, which pertains to the non-AI aspects of device acceptance and testing. Many of the points specifically refer to AI/MRMC studies, which are not applicable to this document.

Here's an analysis based on the provided text:

Device Description and Purpose:
The device is "Medentika CAD/CAM Abutments," which are dental implant abutments. The primary purpose of this submission is to expand the fabrication options for patient-specific final abutments from a "validated milling center" to a "digital dentistry workflow" that integrates CAD/CAM software and milling machines. It also adds new sizes and OEM compatibilities.

Study Type:
This is a pre-market notification (510(k)) submission seeking substantial equivalence to existing legally marketed devices. It relies heavily on non-clinical performance data to demonstrate that the new manufacturing workflow and expanded compatibilities do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness.

Analysis of Requested Information (based on the provided document):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

The document outlines various performance tests conducted to demonstrate substantial equivalence, but it does not explicitly present a "table of acceptance criteria" with corresponding "reported device performance." Instead, it states that the tests demonstrate sufficient strength or ensure accuracy and reliability.

Here's a summary of the performance tests and their implied purpose:

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: The document does not specify numerical sample sizes for any of the non-clinical tests (e.g., how many abutments were mechanically tested, how many software validation tests were run). It simply states that "testing was conducted" or "validation was performed."
• Data Provenance: The document does not explicitly state the country of origin of the data or whether the studies were retrospective or prospective. Given the nature of pre-market non-clinical testing for medical devices, these are typically prospective laboratory tests conducted by the manufacturer or accredited testing facilities. The manufacturer is Medentika® GmbH (Huegelsheim, Germany), suggesting the testing likely occurred in Germany or at internationally recognized labs.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

This information is not applicable to the provided document. The ground truth for this device is established through engineering specifications, material standards (e.g., ASTM F136), and validated manufacturing processes, not through human expert consensus on diagnostic images.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

This information is not applicable to the provided document, as it describes non-clinical engineering and manufacturing validation, not a multi-reader clinical study for AI.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

This information is not applicable to the provided document. This device is a physical dental abutment and its associated CAD/CAM workflow, not an AI-based diagnostic tool that would require human reader studies. The document explicitly states: "No clinical data were included in this submission."

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done:

This information is not applicable to the provided document. While the device utilizes CAD/CAM software and milling machines, it is a physical product manufactured through a workflow, not a standalone AI algorithm whose performance needs to be assessed in isolation. The software functions as a design and manufacturing aid, not a diagnostic or decision-making algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

The "ground truth" in this context refers to established engineering and material standards:

• Standards Compliance: Adherence to ISO standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical strength, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ISO 17665 for sterilization).
• Dimensional Accuracy: Verification against established design parameters and compatibility specifications for dental implants (e.g., OEM implant body and abutment dimensions).
• Material Specifications: Conformance to ASTM F136 for titanium alloy and specifications for zirconia and cement.
• Software Design Parameters: The "ground truth" for the CAD software validation is the pre-defined maximum and minimum design parameters that the software must enforce.

8. The sample size for the training set:

This information is not applicable to the provided document. The "device" in question is a physical dental abutment and its manufacturing workflow, not an AI/ML model that requires a training set. The CAD/CAM software itself is validated, not "trained" on a dataset in the AI sense.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

This information is not applicable to the provided document for the same reasons as point 8.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Omnibut is a pre-manufactured prosthetic component directly connected to the endosseous dental implant and is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation.

The Omnibut™ is a transmucosal abutment used to support screw-retained prostheses on four or more implants. The subject device has a premanufactured connection for the platforms listed in Table 1 Compatible Implant Systems.

The system involves a ball abutment attached to an implant. A retention attachment allows for angle corrections of up to 30° off the implant axis. The ball abutment is inserted into the attachment is adjusted to the desired angle using an orientation screw. The abutment supports prostheses that connect via titanium cylinders, which are incorporated into resin or ceramic prostheses. Finally, the prostheses are retained to the abutment by prosthetic screws.

The subject device abutments and system components are manufactured from Ti-6Al-4V alloy conforming to ASTM F136. The subject device is a single use device is provided nonsterile and intended to be sterilized by the user prior to placement in the patient.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the Omni-Directional Multi-unit Abutment System (Omnibut™), based on the provided FDA 510(k) summary:

Description of the Device

The Omnibut™ is a pre-manufactured prosthetic component directly connected to endosseous dental implants. It is intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation, specifically for supporting screw-retained prostheses on four or more implants. The system includes a ball abutment attached to an implant, with a retention attachment allowing for angle corrections of up to 30° off the implant axis. It supports prostheses that connect via titanium cylinders, which are incorporated into resin or ceramic prostheses. The device is made from Ti-6Al-4V alloy and is provided non-sterile, requiring user sterilization.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The provided document does not specify the exact sample sizes for each individual non-clinical test (e.g., number of abutments tested for dynamic fatigue, retention force, simulated use, or cleaning). It refers to the testing as "non-clinical" bench testing.

• Test Set Provenance: The data is generated from bench testing (laboratory studies), not from clinical data involving human patients. Therefore, information like "country of origin of the data" or "retrospective/prospective" is not applicable in the typical sense of clinical trials. The testing was performed in vitro.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts

This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical bench tests. The "ground truth" for these tests is based on established engineering standards (e.g., ISO 14801), biological evaluation standards (ISO 10993), and internal company protocols for mechanical and cleaning validation, not on expert clinical interpretation of patient data.

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

This information is not applicable as the studies are non-clinical bench tests. Adjudication methods are typically employed in studies involving human interpretation or clinical endpoints to resolve discrepancies in assessment.

5. If a Multi Reader Multi Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

An MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for AI-powered diagnostic devices involving human readers/interpreters, which is not the case for this dental implant abutment. The device is a physical component, not a diagnostic AI tool.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

A standalone performance study was not done in the context of an algorithm. This question is relevant for AI/software devices; this device is a physical medical device. The "standalone" performance here refers to the device's mechanical and biological performance on its own, which is what the bench tests evaluate.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.)

The "ground truth" for the non-clinical performance evaluations relies on:

• Established engineering and biological standards: e.g., ISO 14801:2016 for dynamic fatigue, ISO 10993 for biocompatibility, ANSI/AAMI/ISO for sterilization.
• Predetermined acceptance criteria: For retention force, simulated use, and cleaning efficacy, the "ground truth" is defined by specific pass/fail criteria established during the test design based on expected clinical performance and safety.
• Dimensional accuracy and compatibility models: For compatibility testing, the "ground truth" is established by the dimensions and specifications of OEM implant bodies and abutments.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable because the device is a physical medical component, not a machine learning model or AI algorithm that requires a training set.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

This information is not applicable for the same reason as above (not a machine learning model).

Ask a specific question about this device

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components connected to endosseous dental implants in edentulous or partially edentulous maxilla or mandible to provide support for cement-retained or screw-retained prosthetic restorations. All digitally designed abutments for use with Inclusive® Titanium Abutments for CAD/CAM are intended to be sent to a Prismatik Dentalcraft validated milling center for manufacture.

Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are premanufactured prosthetic components directly connected to endosseous dental implants and are intended for use as an aid in prosthetic rehabilitation. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are designed and fabricated to be compatible with Keystone® Dental PrimaConnex® Implant System, Neodent® GM Implant System, Straumann® BLX Implant System, Implant Direct® Legacy® Implant System, Implant Direct® InterActive® Implant System, Implant Direct® RePlant® Implant System. The products are made from titanium alloy Ti-6A1-4V ELI, which meets ASTM F136-13(2021), Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium-6Aluminum-4Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401). They include Inclusive® Titanium Abutment Blanks intended to be used to fabricate one-piece, all-titanium, patient-specific abutments using CAD/CAM technology and Inclusive® Titanium Abutments 4.5mmH and 6mmH intended to be used for support of fabricated crowns/bridges or a zirconia coping to complete the two-piece abutment. The zirconium coping intended for use with the Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are made from zirconium oxide ceramic, conforming to ISO 13356 Implants for surgery - Ceramic materials based on yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Y-TZP). Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are a two-piece abutment with a titanium base and a ceramic top-half which when cemented together (Shofu MonoCem K020481) constitutes the final finished abutment. Each patient-specific abutment is prescribed by a clinician and manufactured by an authorized milling center validated by Prismatik Dentalcraft Inc. Inclusive® Titanium Abutments are provided non-sterile and intended for single use and prescription use.

Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is manufactured from titanium alloy, Ti-6Al-4V ELI conforming to ASTM F136-13(2021) and used in conjunction with the OEM Keystone® Dental PrimaConnex®, Neodent® GM, Straumann® BLX, Implant Direct® Legacy®, Implant Direct® InterActive®, Implant Direct® RePlant® multi-unit abutments. Inclusive® Multi-Unit Coping is bonded with the dental restoration prior to being seated on the multi-unit abutment via a multi-unit prosthetic screw. The non-engaging configuration of the multiunit coping does not have an internal connection feature and seats onto the flat mating surface of the multi-unit abutment. The multi-unit coping is used in combination with screw-retained multi-unit dental prosthetics, e.g. bridges and bars, which are used to reconstruct the function and aesthetics of lost teeth. The multi-unit coping is straight with no angle correction and provided non-sterile. The device is intended for singe use and prescription use.

The provided document is a 510(k) Summary for a dental device (Inclusive® Titanium Abutments). It details the device's technical characteristics and claims substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on non-clinical testing. However, it does not include specific quantitative acceptance criteria or detailed results of a study designed to compare the device performance against such criteria.

The document discusses "performance data" in general terms, referring to several non-clinical tests (Biocompatibility, Mechanical Properties, Sterilization Validation, Shelf Life and Packaging Validation, and Use in MR Environment). It states that these tests were performed to "demonstrate substantial equivalence" and to "address questions related to substantial equivalence based on the differences in technical specifications," but it doesn't present the data in a way that allows for filling out the requested table of acceptance criteria and reported performance.

Therefore, I cannot provide a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance, nor can I answer questions 2 through 9 regarding sample size, data provenance, expert involvement, adjudication, MRMC studies, or training set details, as this information is not present in the provided text.

The document explicitly states:

• "Non-clinical testing data are submitted to demonstrate substantial equivalence. No clinical data was included in this submission."

This indicates that clinical trials with human subjects, which would typically involve expert ground truth establishment and detailed performance metrics comparing against specific acceptance criteria, were not part of this submission for substantial equivalence.

The "Mechanical Properties" section mentions:

• "Static load and fatigue testing of the implant/abutment assembly was considered according to the FDA Guidance Document, Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Root-form Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Implant Abutments and ISO 14801:2016 standard with the worst-case scenario. The fatigue limit data demonstrated that the subject device has sufficient strength for its intended use."

This implies that there were performance targets based on ISO 14801:2016 for fatigue strength, but the specific acceptance critiera (e.g., minimum fatigue strength in Newtons) and the actual reported performance values are not provided in this summary. It only states that the device "has sufficient strength."

Ask a specific question about this device

The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is indicated for the attachment of full or partial, fixed and removable, restorations retained by endosseous implants to restore masticatory function for the patient.

The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is designed to be used with LOCATOR FIXED and LOCATOR Attachment Systems for the attachment of full or partial, fixed and removable, restorations retained by endosseous implants in the mandible or maxilla. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment consists of various height abutment bodies with an integrated abutment screw. The attachment features are identical compared to LOCATOR Abutments of the LOCATOR High Retention Attachment System (LOCATOR FIXED), cleared in K213391. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment is compatible with Straumann BLX Implant System cleared in K173961. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment will be used with the accessories of the LOCATOR Implant Attachment System (retention inserts, denture attachment housing, and ancillary processing parts) and LOCATOR FIXED Attachment System (fixed inserts, denture attachment housing) for the attachment of a restoration. The LOCATOR Angled Abutment uses identical attachment features as the LOCATOR Abutments, but instead of the attachment features being aligned coaxially, the interfacing features are provided at a 15 degree angle to allow for angle correction, substantially equivalent to the device of K190040. The LOCATOR Angled Abutments and integrated abutment screw are manufactured from titanium (Ti-6Al-4V). The LOCATOR Angled Abutment body is titanium nitride (TiN) coated, identical to LOCATOR Abutments.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for the "LOCATOR Angled Abutment" does not describe a study involving an AI/Machine Learning (ML) device or any specific performance metrics for such a device like sensitivity, specificity, or AUC, or a comparative effectiveness study involving human readers.

This submission is for a medical device (dental implant abutment) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device through physical and mechanical testing, material compatibility, and intended use.

Therefore, I cannot provide a detailed answer to your request based on the provided text, as the information required (acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device, details of an AI/ML study, ground truth establishment, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, etc.) is not present.

In summary, the document does not contain the information needed to answer your questions regarding acceptance criteria and performance of an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

All digitally designed custom abutments for use with DESS Ti Base abutments or Pre-Milled Blank abutments are to be sent to a Terrats Medical validated milling center for manufacture.

The purpose of this submission is to add components to the DESS Dental Smart Solutions system, which includes dental implants, abutments, and prosthetic components cleared previously in various submissions. The previously cleared abutments and prosthetic components are compatible with a variety of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) dental implants as well as DESS Dental Smart Solutions dental implants.

This submission adds various abutments to the DESS and OEM implant lines as summarized on the following pages in Table 1 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Designs, and Table 2 Summary of Subject Device Abutment Sizes.

The subject device abutment designs include Cover Screws, Healing Abutments, Temporary Abutments, Ti Base Abutments, AURUM Base Abutments (Ti Base abutments with a screw channel design that allows easier instrument access to the abutment screw), CoCr Base Abutments, Pre-Milled Blank Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (straight and angled), DESSLoc Abutments (Locator-type abutments), and abutment screws.

This document is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, a line of endosseous dental implant abutments. It details the device's characteristics, intended use, and a comparison to predicate devices to establish substantial equivalence.

Based on the provided text, the device itself is a physical medical device (dental implant abutments and associated components), not a software or AI-driven system. Therefore, the questions related to AI acceptance criteria, training/test sets, expert adjudication, MRMC studies, and ground truth establishment for AI would not be directly applicable to this product as described.

The document focuses on establishing substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate devices through:

• Identical Intended Use: The device is intended for "functional and esthetic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible or maxilla" by providing support for prosthetic restorations, which is the same as the predicate devices.
• Similar Technological Characteristics: The device utilizes similar designs, materials (Ti-6Al-4V, Co-Cr-Mo alloy), manufacturing processes, and sterilization methods as its predicates.
• Performance Data: Non-clinical testing (mechanical testing per ISO 14801, MR environment assessment) and comparison to existing data from predicate devices are used to demonstrate safety and effectiveness.

Therefore, many of the requested elements for describing AI acceptance criteria and studies are not present or applicable in this document.

However, I can extract information relevant to the device's performance assessment and criteria for its type of submission.

Here's an attempt to answer the questions based solely on the provided text, acknowledging that the nature of the device (a physical implant component) means many AI-specific questions will be answered as "Not Applicable" (N/A):

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

The document does not explicitly state quantifiable "acceptance criteria" in a table format with corresponding "reported device performance" metrics for this specific 510(k) submission. Instead, it relies on demonstrating substantial equivalence to existing predicate devices.

The underlying "acceptance criteria" for demonstrating substantial equivalence for this device type are primarily through:

• Mechanical Testing (ISO 14801): This is a critical performance standard for dental implants and abutments. The document states that mechanical testing was "conducted according to ISO 14801 to support the performance." The acceptance criteria would be successful completion of these tests, demonstrating the device's mechanical strength and fatigue resistance are comparable to or better than predicate devices. The reported performance is simply that the tests supported the performance.
• Material Conformance: Materials must conform to specific ASTM standards (e.g., ASTM F136 for Ti-6Al-4V, ASTM F1537 for Co-Cr-Mo). The reported performance is that the materials conform to these standards.
• Biocompatibility: While not detailed in this excerpt, the mention of "biocompatibility" in relation to predicates implies conformance to relevant biocompatibility standards (e.g., ISO 10993 series). The reported performance is that it is compatible.
• Sterilization Validation: Demonstrated sterility assurance level (SAL) of 10⁻⁶ via validated methods (moist heat or gamma irradiation). The reported performance is that validation was performed and met this SAL.
• Dimensional Compatibility: The abutments must fit the corresponding OEM implants correctly. The reported performance is that reverse engineering dimensional analysis confirmed compatibility.

Due to the nature of the document being a 510(k) summary focusing on substantial equivalence rather than a full study report, specific numerical performance results for the device tests are not provided in this text.

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance

• Sample Size for Mechanical Testing: The document states "mechanical testing conducted according to ISO 14801." For such tests, ISO 14801 typically specifies minimum sample sizes (e.g., 10-11 samples for static strength, typically more for fatigue). The exact number of samples used for this specific submission is not explicitly stated, but it would have followed the standard's requirements.
• Data Provenance: The mechanical testing and material analyses are assumed to be "non-clinical data submitted or referenced" by the manufacturer, Terrats Medical SL, based in Barcelona, Spain. The "reverse engineering dimensional analysis" was done by Terrats Medical SL or through contractual agreement. This is prospective testing performed to support the 510(k). The document itself does not specify the country of origin for the underlying OEM implant data used for reverse engineering, although the OEM companies are listed (e.g., Astra Tech AB, BioHorizons).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

N/A. This is a physical device. Ground truth, in the context of AI, refers to validated labels for data used to train and test an algorithm. For a physical device, performance is evaluated through engineering and biocompatibility testing against defined standards. There are no "experts" establishing ground truth in the AI sense. Testing would be performed by qualified engineers and technicians.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

N/A. Adjudication methods are typically used in clinical studies involving interpretation (e.g., by radiologists) to resolve discrepancies. This document describes non-clinical performance testing of a physical device.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

N/A. This product is a dental implant abutment, not an AI software intended to assist human readers.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

N/A. This is a physical device, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

N/A. For engineering tests of physical devices, the "ground truth" is typically derived from established engineering principles, international standards (e.g., ISO 14801 for mechanical properties, ASTM for materials), and the physical properties of the materials and designs themselves. There isn't "expert consensus" or "pathology" in the AI or clinical trials sense.

8. The sample size for the training set

N/A. This is a physical device; there's no "training set" in the machine learning sense. The device is manufactured based on established engineering designs and material specifications.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

N/A. No training set for AI. For device manufacturing, the "ground truth" for design and production parameters comes from established engineering best practices, prior successful device designs (predicate devices), and adherence to quality systems regulations (21 CFR Part 820).

Ask a specific question about this device

DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutments are intended to be used in conjunction with endosseous dental implants in the maxillary or mandibular arch to provide support for prosthetic restorations.

The purpose of this submission is to expand the DESS Dental Smart Solutions abutment system by a change in sterilization status to provide products sterile to the end user that were previously cleared to be provided non-sterile. The subject device abutments and abutment screws were cleared previously to be provided non-sterile to the end user in K170588, K191986, K212628, and K22288. All subject device components will now be provided sterile.

The subject device components include Healing Abutments, Multi-Unit Abutments (0, 17°, and 30°), and abutment screws.

The provided text is a 510(k) summary for the DESS Dental Smart Solutions, an endosseous dental implant abutment. It details the device, its intended use, and its substantial equivalence to previously cleared predicate and reference devices. However, this document does not contain the acceptance criteria or a study proving the device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device.

The 510(k) submission for this dental abutment focuses on establishing substantial equivalence based on:

• Design and Material: The subject device components are identical in design, material (Ti-6Al-4V alloy, DLC coating), and technological characteristics to previously cleared devices.
• Manufacturing: The manufacturing process is consistent with previously cleared devices.
• Biocompatibility: Referenced from previous K-clearances.
• Sterilization: The main change in this submission is expanding the system to provide products sterile to the end-user via gamma irradiation, which was validated by referencing a previous K-clearance (K212538).
• MR Environment Testing: Non-clinical analysis was performed to evaluate the subject devices in the MR environment, referencing published literature and FDA guidance.
• Shelf Life Testing: Referenced from a previous K-clearance (K212538) for samples after accelerated aging.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request to describe the acceptance criteria and a study proving an AI/ML device meets them based on the provided text, as this document is not about an AI/ML medical device. It's about dental implant abutments and establishes substantial equivalence through non-clinical performance data and comparison to predicate devices, not through AI/ML performance metrics.

To provide the information you requested, I would need a document detailing the validation of an AI/ML medical device, which would include definitions of acceptance criteria (e.g., accuracy, sensitivity, specificity), details of training and test datasets, ground truth establishment, and potentially clinical effectiveness studies if applicable.

Ask a specific question about this device

Straumann® dental implants are indicated for the functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. They can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

The subject devices are part of the Straumann® Dental Implant System, which is an integrated system of endosseous dental implants with corresponding abutments and healing components as well as instruments and prosthetic parts. Straumann® dental implants are solid screw implants with a bone anchorage surface that is large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched. In addition, SLActive® is in a chemically activated state, which is preserved by storage in a saline solution (NaCI). Straumann® dental implants can be used following the extraction or loss of natural teeth to restore chewing function. The prosthetic restorations supported are single crowns, bridges and partial or full dentures, which are connected to the implants using the corresponding abutments.

The BLC and TLC implants features the TorcFit connection and are available in the maximum endosteal outer diameters ø 3.3 mm, ø 3.75 mm, ø 5.5 mm and Ø 6.5 mm.

The BLC implants are available with the following length options:

• L 8 mm to L 18 mm for the maximum endosteal outer diameter Ø 3.3 mm.
• L 6 mm to L 18 mm for diameters Ø 3.75 mm and Ø 4.5 mm
• L 6 mm to L 16 mm for diameter Ø 5.5 mm
• L 6 mm to 14 mm for diameter Ø 6.5 mm.

The subject BLC implants are presented with RB (Reqular Base) and WB (Wide Base) prosthetic platform.

The TLC implants are available with the following length options:

• L 8 mm to L 18 mm for the maximum endosteal outer diameter Ø 3.3 mm,
• L 6 mm to L 18 mm for diameters ø 3.75 mm and ø 4.5 mm
• L 6 mm to L 12 mm for diameter Ø 5.5 mm
• L 6 mm to 10 mm for diameter Ø 6.5 mm.

The subject TLC implants are presented with the NT (Narrow TorcFit) RT (Regular TorcFit) WT (Wide TorcFit) prosthetic platform. The implant neck is available either as Standard (2.8 mm height) or Standard Plus (1.8 mm height) option.

The provided text does not contain information about acceptance criteria and a study that proves a device meets those criteria in the context of an AI/ML medical device. The document is an FDA 510(k) summary for Straumann® BLC and TLC Implants, which are endosseous dental implants, not an AI/ML device.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information.

Ask a specific question about this device

Straumann® dental implants and abutments are intended for oral implantation to provide a support structure for connected prosthetic devices.

Straumann® BLX Dental Implants, SLActive®
Straumann® dental implants are indicated for functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. They can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

Straumann® TLX Dental Implants, SLActive®
Straumann® dental implants are indicated for the functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. They can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

Other Straumann® Tissue Level and Bone Level Dental Implants, SLActive®
Straumann® dental implants are indicated for functional and esthetic oral rehabilitation of the upper or lower jaw of edentulous or partially edentulous patients. Unless stated in specific indications, they can be used for immediate, early or late implantation following the extraction or loss of natural teeth. The implants can be placed with immediate function for single-tooth and/or multiple-tooth restorations when good primary stability is achieved and with appropriate occlusal loading to restore chewing function.

Specific indications for use
Straumann® Roxolid® Bone Level Tapered Implant ø 2.9 mm
The Straumann® Roxolid® Bone Level Tapered implants ø 2.9 mm are indicated for single-unit reconstruction of incisors in the lower jaw and lateral incisors in the upper jaw.

Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants
Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants are indicated for fixed or removable reconstruction in situations of moderate to severely atrophic jawbone with adequate bone quality that allows primary stability after implant insertion, where a longer implant cannot be placed due to limited vertical bone height. The recommended healing time before loading is between 10 to 12 weeks.

Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants are specifically indicated for:
Fixed denture prosthesis/splinted units (one implant per unit).
Pontic cases in combination with at least one longer implant.
Fully edentulous cases with at least one Straumann® Roxolid® Standard Plus 4 mm Short Implants in combination with 2 longer implants in the anterior region and at least four total implants.

Titanium Ø 3.3 mm implants
ø3.3 mm S and SP RN implants are to be used only for the following indications:
Partially dentate jaws with implant-borne, fixed constructions: combine with a Ø4.1 mm implants and splint the superstructure.

The SLActive® Implants from the Straumann® Dental Implants System includes:
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø3.3 RN, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø4.1 RN, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø4.8 RN, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, Ø4.8 WN, 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø3.3 NNC, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø3.3 RN, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø4.1 RN and Ø4.8 RN, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, Ø4.8 WN, 6, 8, 10 and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Bone Level, Ø3.3 NC, Ø4.1 RC, and Ø4.8 RC, 8, 10, 12, and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Bone Level Tapered, Ø2.9 SC 10, 12 and 14 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Bone Level Tapered, Ø3.3 NC, Ø4.1 RC, and Ø4.8 RC, 8, 10, 12, 14. 16 and 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, BLX, Ø3.5 RB, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, BLX, Ø3.75 RB, Ø4.0 RB, Ø4.5 RB and Ø5.0 RB, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16. 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, BLX, Ø5.5 WB and Ø6.5 WB, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, TLX, Ø3.75 NT, Ø3.75 RT, Ø4.5 NT and Ø4.5 RT, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard, TLX, Ø5.5 WT and Ø6.5 WT, 6, 8, 10 and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, TLX, Ø3.75 RT, Ø4.5 NT and Ø4.5 RT, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus, TLX, Ø5.5 WT and Ø6.5 WT, 6, 8, 10 and 12 mm
SLActive® and Roxolid®, Standard Plus Short, Ø4.1 RN and Ø4.8 RN and WN, 4 mm 4 mm Short Implants

The device being discussed is "Straumann® SLActive® labeling changes" (K223083). This 510(k) pertains to labeling changes for existing Straumann® SLActive® dental implants and does not introduce new implants or modify existing implant designs. The primary predicate device is K171784 – Straumann Dental Implant System, with several other Straumann® implant systems listed as reference devices.

The acceptance criteria and supporting study are primarily focused on substantiating the updated labeling, particularly regarding the use of SLActive implants in smokers and general wording clarifications.

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

• All indications continue to allow for implant placement in the jaw, providing support for single-tooth or multiple-tooth restorations, and allowing for immediate loading when good primary stability is achieved.
• Information regarding prosthetic restorations was not excluded but relocated to the device description for better understanding.
• The requirement for "4 or more implants for fully edentulous patients" was removed from indications for use as it is considered "common knowledge."
• New specific Indications for Use for Ø 3.3 mm implants provide more details.
• The "Precaution" section of the Instructions for Use now addresses the use of narrow implants in the molar region.
• For specific implant types (e.g., BLX implants), the single-tooth restoration was considered the "worst case due to the higher masticatory load," indicating an understanding of potential stress. |
  | For "Smokers' Claim" (Outcomes of SLActive implants in smokers are encouraging):
  Supported by clinical evidence demonstrating that implant performance (e.g., failure rates, adverse events) is not significantly worse in smokers compared to non-smokers with SLActive implants.
  Demonstrated through systematic literature review or clinical studies. | A systematic literature search identified 5 publications.
• 251 SLActive implants were placed in 237 patients (age range 25-65 years old).
• Studies included titanium or titanium-zirconium alloy implants with SLActive surfaces, diameters 3.3-4.8 mm, and lengths 8-12 mm.
• Reported adverse events (failure to osseointegrate, peri-implantitis, spinning/mobility during surgery, late failure, bone loss, abutment loosening, paresthesia, acrylic/porcelain chipping) were not reported at a higher rate in smokers compared to non-smokers.
• Implant failure rates were not found to be significantly different in smoking compared to non-smoking patients with SLActive implants.
• References: Alsahhaf A (2019), Xiao W (2021), Chen Y (2017), Sener T (2010), Luongo G (2016). (Note: Sener and Luongo were cited in the text but not fully listed in the provided references section). |
  | Sterility:
  Sterilization process validated to SAL of 10^-6.
  Meets pyrogen limit specifications. | - Sterilization via gamma irradiation after final packaging.
• Validated to a Sterility Assurance Level (SAL) of 10^-6 in accordance with ISO 11137-1 and ISO 11137-2 (VDmax25 method).
• Pyrogen limit specifications met with LAL Endotoxin Analysis, testing limit of 20 EU/device (per FDA Guidance and ISO 10993-1). |
  | Biocompatibility:
  Biological assessment performed according to ISO 10993-1 and FDA Guidance. | - Biological assessment performed according to ISO 10993-1 and FDA Guidance "Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1..." for each device. (Results are not detailed but the assessment was stated to be performed). |
  | Dynamic Fatigue:
  Assessment conducted per FDA guidance and ISO 14801. | - Dynamic fatigue assessment conducted according to FDA guidance "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Rootform Endosseous Dental Implants and Endosseous Dental Abutments" and ISO 14801.
• Test covers permanent restoration of implants without failure. (Results are not detailed but the assessment was stated to be performed). |
  | Insertion Performance:
  Demonstrated adequate insertion torque in different bone classes. | - Insertion tests performed for the subject implants.
• Showed adequate insertion torque in different bone classes when inserted according to the surgical procedure. (Results are not detailed but the assessment was stated to be performed). |
  | MR Safety:
  Evaluated for MR Conditional status. | - Obtained MR Conditional status per K180540.
• MR Conditional tests conducted according to FDA's Guidance "Testing and Labeling Medical Devices for Safety in Magnetic Resonance (MR) Environment." (Results are not detailed but the status was noted). |

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance

The core of the "study" for the labeling changes, especially concerning the "smokers' claim," was a systematic literature review, not a direct clinical trial conducted by the applicant for this 510(k).

• Sample Size for Smokers' Claim: The literature review included data from 5 publications which collectively involved 251 SLActive implants placed in 237 patients.
• Data Provenance: The data came from published clinical studies. The document does not specify the exact country of origin for all studies, but at least two cited papers involve authors from China (Xiao, Chen), one from Saudi Arabia (Alsahhaf), and the ITT World Symposium (Chen 2017) was held in Switzerland. The studies are explicitly described as "clinical studies," implying they were prospective or retrospective clinical investigations.

For other non-clinical performance characteristics (sterility, biocompatibility, dynamic fatigue, insertion tests, MR safety), these appear to be internal bench tests and assessments conducted by the manufacturer, or previously established for the cleared predicate/reference devices. No specific sample sizes for these tests are provided in this summary, but it's stated that "No significant changes have been performed to the subject implants since clearance so previously cleared bench data continue to be representative."

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Their Qualifications

• For the "smokers' claim" (literature review): The "ground truth" (i.e., the reported outcomes like adverse event rates and implant failure rates) was established by the authors of the original 5 clinical publications. The document does not specify the qualifications of these individual authors. However, given they are "published clinical studies," it's understood that dental/medical professionals (e.g., oral surgeons, periodontists, implantologists) would have conducted these studies and reported the outcomes.
• For the equivalence discussion of Indications for Use: The "ground truth" is established by comparing the proposed wording against the previously cleared wording in the primary and reference predicate devices, which were approved by the FDA based on clinical and scientific evidence at the time of their clearance. This comparison itself is performed by regulatory affairs experts on behalf of the manufacturer.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• For the "smokers' claim" (literature review): The adjudication of adverse events and implant failure rates was performed within each of the original 5 clinical studies. The specific adjudication methods used in those individual studies are not detailed in this 510(k) summary. Given the nature of scientific literature, these studies would typically involve clinical follow-up and assessment by the treating clinicians/researchers.
• For the Indications for Use equivalence: This is a comparison process, not a clinical adjudication. The equivalence of wording is assessed by regulatory experts against the historical FDA clearances.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was NOT done. This submission is for labeling changes for dental implants, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool.

6. If a Standalone (Algorithm Only Without Human-in-the-Loop Performance) was done

• Not applicable. This submission is for a medical device (dental implants), not a software algorithm or AI.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For the "smokers' claim": The ground truth was clinical outcomes data reported in peer-reviewed published clinical studies. These outcomes included adverse events (e.g., failure to osseointegrate, peri-implantitis, bone loss) and implant failure rates.
• For other performance tests (sterility, fatigue, etc.): The ground truth would be established through defined bench testing protocols and adherence to international standards (e.g., ISO, FDA guidance).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This submission is not for a machine learning or AI device that requires a training set. The "smokers' claim" was based on a literature review which leverages existing published clinical data, akin to an external validation set rather than a training set for the current submission.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established

• Not applicable. (See point 8.)

Ask a specific question about this device